Content uploaded by Rotem Petranker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rotem Petranker on Nov 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Microdosing Psychedelics: Personality, mental health, and creativity differences in
microdosers
Thomas Anderson, Rotem Petranker*, Le-Anh Dinh-Williams, Daniel Rosenbaum, Cory
Weissman, Emma Hapke, Katrina Hui, & Norman Farb
Accepted to Psychopharmacology
2018
*corresponding author: rotem@boredomlab.org
Abstract
Microdosing psychedelics — the regular consumption of small amounts of psychedelic
substances such as LSD or psilocybin — is a growing trend in popular culture. Recent studies on
full-dose psychedelic psychotherapy reveal promising benefits for mental well-being, especially
for depression and end-of-life anxiety. While full-dose therapies include perception-distorting
properties, microdosing may provide complementary clinical benefits using lower-risk, non-
hallucinogenic doses. No experimental study has evaluated psychedelic microdosing, however;
this pre-registered study is the first to investigate microdosing psychedelics and mental health.
Recruited from online forums, current and former microdosers scored lower on measures of
dysfunctional attitudes and negative emotionality and higher on wisdom, open-mindedness, and
creativity when compared to non-microdosing controls. These findings provide promising initial
evidence that warrants controlled experimental research to directly test safety and clinical
efficacy. As microdoses are easier to administer than full-doses, this new paradigm has the
exciting potential to shape future psychedelic research.
1. Introduction
Microdosing psychedelics — the practice of regularly consuming very low doses of
psychedelic substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or psilocybin (“magic”
mushrooms) — is a growing practice despite a lack of scientific research validating its effects.
One online microdosing forum (/r/microdosing subreddit, Reddit Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA)
has almost 40,000 subscribers and doubled its subscriber count in the past year (Figure 1). The
popular media has described consumption of psychedelics in doses much lower than typical
therapeutic doses (Fadiman, 2011; Leonard, 2015; Solon, 2016; Waldman, 2017) and articles and
anecdotes claim benefits including improved mood, focus, and creativity alongside decreased
symptoms of depression and anxiety. While decreased depression and anxiety are consistent with
research on full-dose psychedelics (Carhart-Harris et al., 2017; Griffiths et al., 2016),
microdosing could offer these benefits without any perceptual distortions and reduced need for
expensive clinical oversight typical of full-dose psychedelic psychotherapy. Nevertheless, both
LSD and psilocybin are controlled substances in most countries and so members of the public
enticed by purported benefits of microdosing expose themselves to the risks implied by
criminalized activity. For example, in the US, LSD and psilocybin are schedule I controlled
substances, meaning that they have no accepted therapeutic use. Such risks are exacerbated by an
absence of even minimal scientific evidence that normally surrounds clinical use, such as data on
safety, efficacy, common side-effects, contraindications, and appropriate dose and dose schedule.
Figure 1. Rise in subscribers to an online microdosing forum, Reddit.com/r/microdosing. As of
October 2018, the subscriber count has reached nearly 40,000 subscribers, doubling in less than
one year.
It is unlikely that normative standards for microdosing will emerge without an initial
description of current microdosing practices and associated outcomes. We therefore measured
self-reported practices and psychological function of participants in existing microdosing
communities and compared them to control participants with no microdosing experience. This
design allows for a structured description of the common practices used in microdosing from
which future clinical trials can build.
1.1 Full-dose Psychedelics
Interest in microdosing is likely predicated on research linking clinical benefits to full-
dose psychedelic use. By 1975, over one thousand studies had linked psychedelic substance use
with salutary effects on mental health and personal growth (Greenspoon & Bakalar, 1979). More
recent research suggests efficacy for a number of health conditions, including obsessive
compulsive disorder (Moreno et al., 2006), alcohol dependence (Bogenschutz et al., 2015),
tobacco dependence (Johnson et al., 2014), depression (Carhart-Harris et al., 2017; Osório et al.,
2015), and end-of-life anxiety (Griffiths et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2016).
While research on psychedelics provides evidence for the therapeutic effects of full-
doses, such experiences are often quite intense thus confer substantive participant risk. Popular
vernacular includes the term "bad trip", and, indeed, one study participant described a full-dose
experience as "the worst experience of her life" (Griffiths et al., 2011). In an online survey of the
worst “bad trips” experienced, 39% percent of participants rated their psychedelic experience
among the top five most challenging experiences of his/her lifetime (Carbonaro et al., 2016). At
the same time, Carbonaro et al. (2016) also found that despite the difficult experiences, 84% of
participants reported benefitting from the experience. Although research on LSD and psilocybin
suggest low risks for abuse or harmful effects (Amsterdam et al., 2011; Halpern and Pope, 1999;
Johnson et al., 2018), a small percentage of users are at risk of developing persisting perceptual
effects (Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder; Martinotti et al., 2018) or risk being
hospitalized for acute intoxication, especially if mixed with alcohol (Hardaway et al., 2016).
While large population studies suggest that psychedelics are not usually associated with
detrimental mental health outcomes (Krebs & Johansen, 2013), microdosing may circumvent this
issue as anecdotal reports suggest numerous positive outcomes without the risks associated with
acute full-dose intoxication (Fadiman, 2011).
1.2 The Present Study
In this study we describe the psychological profile of the growing microdosing
community by making comparisons against a population of non-microdosers. We compared
groups of self-described microdosers (current and former microdosers) against controls (no
microdosing experience) across a variety of mental health and personality variables. These
include dysfunctional attitudes (de Graaf et al., 2009), wisdom (Glück et al., 2013), negative
emotionality and open-mindedness (Soto and John, 2016), and creativity (Silvia, 2011). This
study is part of a larger project that also reports on the demographics and psychiatric history of
microdosing users (Rosenbaum et al., 2018). A qualitative report examining subjective benefits
and drawbacks of microdosing is also in preparation (Anderson et al., 2018). We presently
address pre-registered hypotheses about the outcomes associated with microdosing experience on
validated scales.
2. Methods
2.1 Pre-Registered Hypotheses
Prior to data collection this study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework
(OSF; https://osf.io/ke49d/). We define "Microdosers" as those participants with experience
microdosing, whether current or former use. We pre-registered the following hypotheses:
Mental Health Vulnerability, Wisdom, and Personality
While the mechanisms driving psychedelic substances’ clinical efficacy are unclear,
several psychological constructs are likely involved. These include practical indicators of
flourishing, such as freedom from dysfunctional beliefs about oneself, other people, and the
world; wisdom; and personality traits, especially neuroticism and openness to experiences.
Psychedelic substances are purported to have profound effects on one’s understanding of
the self and world, leading to enhanced insight and personal growth (Domínguez-Clavé et al.,
2016; Dos Santos et al., 2016; Kometer et al., 2015; Strassman, 2016). As such, we hypothesized
that microdosers would have lower dysfunctional attitudes and higher wisdom than non-
microdosers. Furthermore, improved mood and reduced mental health concerns are commonly
reported outcomes of microdosing online (/r/microdosing subreddit, Reddit Inc, San Francisco,
CA, USA). For this reason, we hypothesized that microdosers would have lower negative
emotionality (depression, anxiety, and emotional volatility) than non-microdosers. Finally,
participants experiencing a single full dose of psilocybin showed a robust and sustained increase
in openness (MacLean et al., 2011); we therefore predicted that microdosers would also have
higher openness.
H1a: Microdosers will have lower dysfunctional attitude scores than non-microdosers.
H1b: Microdosers will have higher wisdom scores than non-microdosers.
H1c: Microdosers will have lower negative emotionality scores than non-microdosers.
H1d: Microdosers will have higher open-mindedness scores than non-microdosers.
Creativity
The Broaden and Build theory (Fredrickson, 2004) proposes a link between positive
emotions and relaxed cognitive constraints as improved well-being may recruit personal
resources in the generation of creative ways of coping with challenges. Enhanced creativity is
one of the commonly reported outcomes of microdosing in media reports (Solon, 2016) and
online (/r/microdosing subreddit, Reddit Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA) and is often reported as a
benefit of full-dose psychedelics (Fadiman, 2011).
H2: Microdosers will have higher creativity scores than non-microdosers.
Importance of Benefits
Participants were asked to rate how important qualitative benefits of microdosing were to
them. We used this measure of subjective "importance of benefits” as a broad outcome of
participants' positive valuation of microdosing. Based on online anecdotal reports we predicted
that there would be a total-dose response curve such that microdosers would rate the importance
of benefits as quickly increasing to a plateau. Concerning dose scheduling, James Fadiman
(2011) proposed a dose-schedule such that microdosers consume their substance one day, then
refrain for two days, then dose again; we hypothesized that this schedule would show optimal
reported importance of benefits compared to alternate dose frequencies, perhaps due to
substance-tolerance (more frequent) or limited efficacy (less frequent).
Total Doses and Dose Frequency
H3a: A logarithmic relationship will exist between total lifetime microdoses and average
reported importance of benefits. Specifically, benefits are expected to be minimal with
minimal total doses, then increase, and subsequently stabilize at a plateau.
H3b: A quadratic relationship will exist between frequency of microdosing and average
reported importance of benefits. Specifically, maximum benefits are expected when
participants report frequency of microdoses at ~3 days between microdoses with reduced
benefits for shorter and longer frequencies.
More frequent and more intense positive experiences with a substance motivate future
use of that substance (de Wit and Phillips, 2012). As such, microdosers with a more extensive
history of full-dose psychedelic use may be especially motivated to try microdosing and may
evaluate benefits of microdosing more highly. This positivity bias may extend beyond
psychedelics as, more generally, substance use is associated with greater openness to experience
(Gunnarsson et al., 2008; Terracciano et al., 2008; Trull and Sher, 1994), which may include an
openness to try novel pharmacological interventions, such as microdosing.
Substance-Use History
H4a: Microdosers reporting at least one life-time use of a classic psychedelic (LSD,
psilocybin mushrooms, DMT, ayahuasca, mescaline) at full dose will report higher
average importance of benefits than microdosers that have not had a full dose.
H4b: Microdosers reporting greater variety of recreational substance use ("Polydrug user
experience index", see below) will report higher average importance of benefits than
microdosers with less recreational substance experience.
2.2 Deviations from Pre-Registration
A survey-flow error resulted in unintended data-collection on dose frequency and
importance (H3 and H4) from participants with no experience microdosing; this data has been
discarded.
2.3 Participants
Participant were snowball-recruited via social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and
recruited through posts on the online forum "reddit" (Reddit Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA): links
were posted under the username /u/oredna on the following subreddits: Microdosing, Nootropics,
Psychonaut, RationalPsychonaut, Tryptonaut, Drugs, LSD, shrooms, DMT, researchchemicals,
and SampleSize. Both participants with experience and participants without experience
microdosing psychedelics were recruited for this study. Participation was voluntary, and
participants were not remunerated. The survey was in English and internationally available.
Participants exited the online survey at different stages of completion; different analyses
therefore employ different numbers of participants. While 1390 respondents began the survey,
475 exited before responding, 3 requested that their responses be removed, and 3 responses were
removed for disingenuous responding, i.e. "trolling". In total 909 participants entered enough
data to be included in analyses, sorted into two categories: those with microdosing experience
(Microdosers: n = 594, 65%) and those without such experience (Non-microdosers: n = 315,
35%); full-dose experience with psychedelics was not considered for determining microdosing
status. Of these participants 29% were currently microdosing (current microdosers), 37% had
microdosed in the past but have since stopped (former microdosers), 30% were interested in
microdosing but had no prior experience, and 4% had no prior experience and reported not being
interested in microdosing. Participants from 29 countries responded to the survey (median age =
26, 82% males, 70% white). For a more comprehensive breakdown see the full epidemiological
report (Rosenbaum et al., 2018).
2.4 Design and Questionnaires
Following informed consent, participants completed online computer-based
questionnaires (https://osf.io/jmcrh/) including questions pertaining to microdosing habits
(substance, frequency, dosage), substance use and mental health history, dispositional personality
variables (Dysfunctional Attitudes, Wisdom, Negative Emotionality, Open-Mindedness), and a
creativity task. Questions were displayed according to experience with microdosing, i.e.
individuals who reported never having microdosed were not shown questions related to a history
of microdosing (note survey flow error, 1.4.1 above). For uniformity, all scales were rated using
a continuous 0-100 slider-scale with nominal descriptors at 0 ("Disagree Strongly") and 100
("Agree Strongly") (Matejka et al., 2016). For brevity, methods reported here focus on variables
analyzed in this paper; a complete list of all questions is available on the OSF pre-registration.
2.4.1 Microdosing Substance
The majority of participants reported using LSD (65%) and/or Psilocybin (28%) for
microdosing; 16% reported using another substance. For a more comprehensive breakdown see
the full epidemiological report (Rosenbaum et al., 2018).
2.4.2 Mental Health Vulnerability
The DAS-A-17 is a short-version of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale, a 40-item self-
report scale designed to measure the presence and intensity of dysfunctional beliefs (de Graaf et
al., 2009). Participants rate statements of beliefs (e.g. "If I fail at my work, then I am a failure as
a person.") on a 7-point Likert scale and the total score is the sum of the 17-items (range: 17–
119) with higher scores indicating more dysfunctional attitudes (Weissman and Beck, 1978). The
DAS-A-17 includes a total-score and two subscales: "perfectionism/performance evaluation" (11
items) and "dependency" (6 items). Reliability for total score was excellent (α = 0.91) and good
for the subscales (perf: α = 0.87, dep: α = 0.85).
A Mental Health Index of psychological disorders was computed as a simple binary 0/1
based on the question, "Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or health care professional
(e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist) with any of the following diagnoses", which was followed by a
list of DSM-V diagnoses. Endorsing any diagnosis was coded as a "1", otherwise "None of the
above" was coded as "0". Comprehensive findings will be available in the epidemiological report
(Rosenbaum et al., 2018).
2.4.3 Wisdom
The Brief Wisdom Screening Scale (BWSS, (Glück et al., 2013) was developed by
selecting the 20 items that were most highly correlated with the common factor of "wisdom self-
report" across three leading wisdom self-report measures. Reliability was good (α = 0.86).
2.4.4 Personality
The Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI2, Soto and John, 2016) is an updated five-factor
personality measure using the commonly recognized five-factor model: Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality (formerly “Neuroticism”), and Open-
Mindedness (formerly Openness to Experience). Our hypotheses were centered on two of these
subscales: Negative Emotionality and Open-Mindedness, thus only these factors were measured.
Reliability was good (Negative Emotionality α = 0.91, Open-Mindedness α = 0.79).
2.4.5 Creativity
The Unusual Uses Task is a task in which participants generate creative uses for mundane
objects (UUT; (Silvia, 2011). The UUT instructions emphasized the importance of original
responses, reading “Please try and think of the most unusual, creative, and uncommon uses you
can imagine” (Harrington, 1975). Participants were asked to give as many responses as they
could for each of two items (brick, knife), allotted one minute for each. During analysis,
responses were split into alphabetical lists to avoid within-participant biases. Responses were
rated by three independent research assistants using three dimensions: uncommon, clever, and
remote (Silvia et al., 2008). Dimension-scores across objects were averages to produce three
dimension-scores. Intraclass correlation coefficient was moderate for each dimension
(Uncommon: 68.25, Remote: 57.25, Clever: 59.75) and moderate for each object (brick = .61,
knife = .64).
2.4.6 Importance of Benefits
Participants rated qualitative benefits of microdosing in terms of personal, subjective
importance for three self-generated benefits. The average of these scores was then used as a
broad index of participants' subjective valuation of microdosing, analyzed in H3/4 in this study.
A taxonomy that organizes the participant-generated benefits has been generated using Grounded
Theory analysis and will be featured in an independent report (Anderson et al., 2018).
2.4.7 Microdosing Frequency
Microdosers reported the total number of lifetime microdoses taken (0 to 100). They also
reported dose scheduling, that is, the number of days spaced between each microdose (dose
every day to dose once every two months).
2.4.8 Substance-Use History
To test H4 concerning substance-use history, participants reported their experience with
full-dose psychedelics and with other substances. We developed a novel index: the "Polydrug
User Experience Index". This novel measure was computed as the sum of recreational
experiences across 13 classes of substance (e.g. Alcohol, Cannabis, MDMA, Stimulants, Opiates,
Dissociatives, etc.) accounting for recency of experience. Each class of substance was scored
according to the following metric: (a) used in past month: +4 points; (b) used in past year: +2
points; (c) used ever: +1 point; (d) never used: +0 points; (e) Prefer not to answer: +0 points.
Scores range from 0–52, with lower scores indicating less experience with recreational substance
use.
2.4.9 Mood
A "Valence" score was computed using a mood-board (https://osf.io/jmcrh/) as the count
of pleasant minus unpleasant items, as was an "Arousal" score for high-intensity minus low-
intensity moods.
3. Results
Table 1. Contrast between Microdosers and Non-Microdosers, means with standard deviations
and standardized effect-sizes.
Variable
Microdoser
Non-Microdoser
Effect size
d [95% CI]
Age
27.23 (8.94)
26.36 (7.78)
0.1 [ -0.04 , 0.25 ]
Education1
4.72 (1.72)
4.78 (1.77)
-0.03 [ -0.18 , 0.11 ]
SES2
0.50 (1.33)
0.51 (1.40)
-0.01 [ -0.15 , 0.14 ]
Mood — Valence
2.33 (4.40)
-0.16 (4.14)
0.58 [ 0.44 , 0.72 ]
Mood — Intensity
-0.08 (2.42)
0.02 (2.40)
-0.04 [ -0.18 , 0.09 ]
Dysfunctional Attitudes (DAS-17)3
40.62 (16.28)
49.30 (16.33)
-0.53 [ -0.77 , -0.29 ]
Wisdom (BWSS)
66.68 (13.16)
60.05 (12.98)
0.51 [ 0.27 , 0.74 ]
Negative Emotionality (BFI-2)
41.53 (20.06)
48.16 (18.89)
-0.34 [ -0.56 , -0.11 ]
Open-Mindedness (BFI-2)
76.43 (12.44)
73.33 (13.16)
0.25 [ 0.02 , 0.47 ]
1 – Education was coded according to the International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2011): ISCED level 0 = Early childhood education, 1 = Primary education, 2 =
Lower secondary education, 3 = Upper secondary education, 4 = Post-secondary non-tertiary education
Tertiary education, 5 = Short-cycle tertiary education, 6 = Bachelor’s or equivalent level, 7 = Master’s
or equivalent level, 8 = Doctoral or equivalent level
2 – Socio-Economic Status (SES) was coded as: -3 = Non-working class (casual workers, pensioners, or
dependents); -2 = Working class (semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers); -1 = Skilled working class
(skilled manual workers); 0 = Lower-middle class (junior managerial, administrative, or professional); 1
= Middle class (intermediate managerial, administrative, or professional); 2 = Upper-middle class
(higher managerial, administrative, or professional); 3 = Upper class (royalty or immense heritable
wealth).
3 –DAS scores have been transformed to the original DAS-17 scale (17-119).
Table 2. Follow-up Analysis of Microdosers (Current versus Former), means with standard
deviations and standardized effect-sizes.
Variable
Current
Microdoser
Former
Microdoser
Effect size
d [95% CI]
Age
28.89 (9.71)
25.93 (8.06)
0.33 [ 0.16 , 0.51 ]
Education
4.83 (1.70)
4.64 (1.73)
0.11 [ -0.06 , 0.28 ]
SES
0.48 (1.34)
0.52 (1.32)
-0.03 [ -0.2 , 0.14 ]
Mood — Valence
2.93 (4.57)
1.86 (4.21)
0.24 [ 0.08 , 0.41 ]
Mood — Intensity
0.10 (2.38)
-0.23 (2.45)
0.14 [ -0.03 , 0.3 ]
Dysfunctional Attitudes (DAS-17)
39.53 (14.58)
41.53 (17.56)
-0.12 [ -0.36 , 0.11 ]
Wisdom (BWSS)
66.09 (12.86)
67.18 (13.42)
-0.08 [ -0.32 , 0.15 ]
Negative Emotionality (BFI-2)
43.32 (19.98)
39.95 (20.07)
0.17 [ -0.06 , 0.4 ]
Open-Mindedness (BFI-2)
77.06 (11.91)
75.87 (12.91)
0.09 [ -0.13 , 0.32 ]
3.1 Pre-Registered Hypotheses and Planned Follow-up Analysis
3.1.1 Mental Health Vulnerability, Wisdom, and Personality
Mental Health Vulnerability. Microdosing predicted lower scores on Dysfunctional
Attitudes (b = -8.69, 95% CI [-12.48 -4.89], z(364) = -4.49, p < .001, r = -0.92), even when
controlling for a history of mental illness, which was also significant (b = 5.74, 95% CI [2.45
9.03], z(364) = 3.42, p < .001, r = 0.85) (Figure 2). Dysfunctional Attitudes were not related to
current versus former microdosing (b = 1.90, 95% CI [-1.91 5.71], p = 0.33), nor to type of
substance used (LSD vs Psilocybin: b = 0.56, 95% CI [-4.93 6.05], p = 0.842), nor to total
number of lifetime microdoses (b = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.47 0.15], p = 0.074).
Figure 2. Differences in dysfunctional attitudes between microdosers and non-microdosers
including breakdown by history of mental illness. The asterisk (*) indicates a significant main
effect of microdosing status such that microdosers showed lower dysfunctional attitudes than
non-microdosers (p < 0.001). Respondents with no history of mental illness (blue) also had lower
dysfunctional attitudes than those with a history of mental illness (orange, p < 0.001), though
microdosing status was a significant predictor even controlling for this potent covariate.
Wisdom. Microdosing predicted higher wisdom scores (b = 6.61, 95% CI [3.52 9.69],
z(367) = 4.19, p < .001, r = 0.88) when controlling for age and level of education, which were
not significant (age: b = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26 0.04], p = 0.16, education: b = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.43
1.24], p = 0.35). No significant differences were found between current and former microdosers
*
(b = 1.09, 95% CI [-1.96 4.13], p = 0.48), nor type of substance used (b = 1.37, 95% CI [-2.83
5.57], p = .523), nor total lifetime number of microdoses (b = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.80 2.05], p =
0.39).
Negative Emotionality. Microdosing predicted lower Negative Emotionality (b = -5.78,
95% CI [-10.13 -1.43], z(396) = -2.60, p = .009, r = -0.85), even after controlling for gender,
which was also a significant predictor (higher Negative Emotionality in females, b = 10.49, 95%
CI [5.33 15.65], z(396) = 3.99, p < .001, r = 0.95). Planned follow-up analysis tested the
difference between current and former microdosers and no significant difference existed between
the groups (b = -2.95, 95% CI [-7.47 1.58], p = 0.20), nor between substance used (b = -5.18,
95% CI [-11.50 1.15], p = .110), nor any effect of lifetime number of microdoses (b = -0.25, 95%
CI [-2.38 1.89], p = 0.82) on Negative Emotionality.
Open-Mindedness. Microdosing predicted greater Open-Mindedness (b = 3.24, 95% CI
[0.38 6.10], z(392) = 2.22, p = .027, r = 0.67), including when controlling for education, which
was not significant (b = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.65 0.81],p = 0.83). Again there were no significant
differences between current and former microdosers (b = -1.18, 95% CI [-4.00 1.64], p = 0.41),
nor type of substance used (b = 1.35, 95% CI [-2.61 5.31], p = .506), nor total lifetime number of
microdoses (b = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55 2.09], p = 0.26).
3.1.2 Creativity
Microdosing predicted higher scores on all three creativity facets: on average, responses
made by microdosers were more clever (b = 0.57, SE = 0.13, z(423) = 4.25, p < .001, r = 0.15),
more uncommon (b = 0.50, SE = 0.15, z(427) = 3.42, p < .001, r = 0.14) and more remote (b =
0.74, SE = 0.16, z(425) = 4.49, p < .001, r = 0.20).
3.1.3 Importance of Benefits
Self-reported "importance of benefits” was intended to reflect participants' broad
valuation of microdosing. Counter to H3a/b, no significant differences were found in reported
importance of benefits when regressed on lifetime microdoses (b = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.81 2.82], p
= .277) nor frequency of microdosing regardless of explored linear and non-linear relationships
(raw: b = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.66 0.53], p = 0.83; squared: b = -0.0004, 95% CI [-0.01 0.01], p =
0.94; logarithmic: b = 1.21, 95% CI [-2.68 5.09],p = 0.54). Counter to H4a/b there were also no
significant difference in the importance of benefits between participants who had previous
experience with full-dose classic psychedelics and those who had no such experience (b = -4.09,
95% CI [-11.80 3.61], p = 0.30) nor based on the variety and recency of recreational substance
use (Polydrug User Experience Index: b = -0.006, 95% CI [-0.26 0.25], p = 0.96).
3.2 Exploratory Analysis
Exploratory comparison of mood measures (valence and intensity, Tables 1&2) by
Welch's t-test revealed that microdosers reported significantly more positive valence (M=2.33,
SD=4.40) than non-microdosers (M=-0.16, SD=4.14; difference: 2.49, 95% CI [1.91 3.07],
t(675) = 8.44, p < .001, r = 0.31). No differences were found for mood intensity (difference: -
0.11, 95% CI [-0.44 0.22] p = 0.53). For valence, current microdosers (M=2.93, SD=4.57) also
reported more positive valence than former microdosers (M=1.86, SD=4.21; difference: 1.07,
95% CI [0.35 1.79], t(533) = 2.92, p = .004, r = 0.13), but no difference in mood intensity
(difference: 0.33, 95% CI [-0.06 0.72], p = 0.10).
4. Discussion
This is the first preregistered report on microdosing psychedelics and is intended to
inform future lab-based clinical intervention studies. We investigated psychedelic microdosing in
online communities and tested pre-registered hypotheses (Anderson et al., 2017) concerning the
relationship between experience with microdosing and various mental health and personality
variables. Our results suggest a beneficial relationship wherein experience with microdosing is
associated with lower dysfunctional attitudes and negative emotionality and higher wisdom,
open-mindedness, and creativity. The most popular substances used to microdose were LSD and
psilocybin, and no significant differences based on substance were found on our quantitative
measures. The qualitative benefits and drawbacks collected in this survey may yet reveal
substance-based effects (Anderson et al., 2018). Hypotheses predicting perceived importance of
microdosing from dose-related practices were unsupported and optimal dose scheduling remains
an open question. Exploratory analyses revealed that microdosers, especially current
microdosers, had more positive emotional valence than non-microdosers, whereas emotional
intensity was not significantly different. Taken together, these findings suggest that randomized,
placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of microdosing are warranted to investigate the causal
efficacy of microdosing.
Consistent with our hypotheses, microdosing experience was associated with
meaningfully lower levels of dysfunctional attitudes. Individuals with higher dysfunctional
attitudes maintain a set of disadvantageous beliefs that increase vulnerability to stressors (Jarrett
et al., 2012) and high scores are associated with depression (Adler et al., 2015; de Graaf et al.,
2009). Also consistent with our hypotheses was the lower negative emotionality seen in
microdosers, though the estimated effect was less precise. Tendencies to experience negative
emotionality (e.g. anxiety, depression, emotional volatility) are a robust predictor of mental and
physical health problems (Lahey, 2009) thus reduced vulnerability is reflected in the lower
scores seen in microdosers. Exploratory analysis revealed that microdosers had more positive
emotional valence than non-microdosers, linking microdosing to better mood states. While
causation cannot be inferred from these results, significant differences were preserved even after
controlling for potent covariates, such as gender and history of mental illness, indicating a
potentially distinct contribution of microdosing on mental health vulnerability that warrants
further study.
Microdosers also had higher wisdom, which is a complex trait (BWSS, Glück et al.,
2013). As measured by the BWSS, wisdom is understood to reflect learning from one's mistakes,
considering multiple perspectives when facing a situation, being in tune with one's own emotions
and the emotions of others, and feeling a sense of connection and unity. Higher scores, as seen in
this sample of microdosers, may be associated with cognitive and emotional processing
differences including enhanced capacity for perspective taking, resilience in the face of the
vicissitudes of life, and increased feelings of engagement and connection. RCT research
addressing the relationship between wisdom and microdosing are warranted.
Greater open-mindedness was expected in microdosers compared to controls due to
previous studies noting increases in openness following a full-dose of psilocybin (MacLean,
Johnson, & Griffiths, 2011). These differences were supported, though this effect was relatively
weaker than the others. Still, given the findings from full-dose psychedelic studies, future clinical
intervention research should continue investigating any causal relationship between open-
mindedness and microdosing.
Microdosers were more creative when finding unusual uses for household items. This is
consistent with Fredrickson's (2004) Broaden and Build theory, which suggests a positive
relationship between creativity and positive affect, which was also seen in microdosers. Happier,
more creative people may be more likely to apply novel modes of thinking in their personal and
interpersonal challenges (Fredrickson, 2004). Our findings are also consistent with the anecdotal
reports that a relationship between microdosing, creativity, and mood exists, but RCTs, ideally
with multiple creativity measures, are required.
None of our hypotheses concerning the importance of microdosing benefits and
microdosing practices were supported. It is likely that this measure was not sensitive and specific
enough; planned analyses of qualitative benefits and drawbacks of microdosing will be explored
in a separate report (Anderson et al., 2018). It may be that microdosing frequency is truly
unrelated to the subjective valuation of microdosing, but this seems improbable. We suggest that
this research question is best addressed in RCT studies focused on specific benefits with
experimental manipulation of dose and schedule to determine optimal benefit-specific protocols.
Similarly, there is no evidence that outcomes are predicated on prior experience with substances,
whether full-dose psychedelics or with a variety of substances. More microdosers had experience
with full-doses (69%, n=412) then did not (31%, n=182) and many microdosers (and non-
microdosers) had experience with full-dose psychedelics within the month prior to completing
the survey. As full-dose psychedelics can have benefits lasting at least a month (Carhart-Harris et
al., 2017) this covariate should be formally modelled in future microdosing research designs,
which should aim to include both psychedelic-naïve and psychedelic-experienced participants.
5. Limitations and Future Directions
The sample is both a strength and a limitation of this study. This sample represents a true
community of microdosers with dozens of countries represented, however, countries in the
Anglo cultural cluster make up the majority of the sample (>70%) and participants were
predominantly middle-class, white, male, and heterosexual. Sampling from online communities,
including Reddit, could create a demographic bias thus we cannot suggest a definitive
epidemiological generalization. Despite this limitation, this sample does inform us about real
community practices in an otherwise unstudied population and reflects our sample of interest.
A second limitation of this study is its correlational nature. This cross-sectional design
contained no longitudinal component or experimental manipulation and cannot be used to infer
causal relationships. Our findings of group-differences do not infer that microdosing caused
these differences as some of the measured constructs may even promote an increased willingness
to explore microdosing, e.g. open-mindedness. Instead, these findings are intended as a
descriptive foundation upon which experimental and clinical studies of psychedelic microdosing
can be designed, exploring the directionality of relationships established in the present study.
To test causal hypotheses concerning microdosing effects, pre-registered randomized
placebo-control trials (RCTs) are needed. With random assignment to microdose or placebo it
would be possible to determine whether microdosing causally influences mental health and
personality. Following positive causal findings, mechanistic studies could then investigate the
observed efficacy in terms of physiological, psychological, and neurobiological changes.
Promisingly, microdosing may prove easier to administer, monitor, and placebo-control
in lab settings due to the absence of the intense perceptual shifts induced by full-doses.
Microdosing may thus be amenable to designs that could aid in mapping the neural mechanisms
behind psychedelic efficacy. Microdosing could also be explored as an adjunct to long-term
psychotherapy predicated on the longitudinal cultivation of resilience and insight, a new
paradigm that could compliment the acutely transformative model underlying high-dose
psychedelic psychotherapy (Rosenbaum et al., 2018).
6. Conclusion
This study provides initial, correlational evidence for mental health and personality
benefits associated with microdosing psychedelics. While anecdotal reports of microdosing
benefits have existed for some time (Fadiman, 2011), this study marks the first formal study of
the topic. Additionally, the use of a pre-registered study design sets a precedent for responsible
and replicable psychedelic microdosing research. To add depth to the current discussion, a full
epidemiological report (Rosenbaum et al., 2018) and a Grounded Theory analysis of qualitative
outcomes (Anderson et al., 2018) are forthcoming.
The results of the present study suggest that there is a significant relationship between
microdosing experience and measures of mental health and flourishing including lower
dysfunctional attitudes and negative emotionality, higher wisdom and open-mindedness, and
higher creativity and affect-valence. These findings are the initial evidence that warrants RCTs to
directly test safety and therapeutic efficacy. With almost 40,000 users subscribing to the
/r/microdosing subreddit and thousands more reading media reports on microdosing this growing
community continues to explore microdosing and its effects. It is our hope that scientific
reporting can help to clarify and inform the public about the nature of microdosing’s putative
effects and that this new paradigm helps shape future psychedelic research. We hope that
researchers will draw on our shared resources (https://osf.io/g5cwy/) and pre-register studies of
their own so that psychedelic science will be built upon strong research practices. Insights from
these and other studies will form the backbone of future research into microdosing psychedelics
Conflict of interest statement
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Adler AD, Strunk DR and Fazio RH (2015) What Changes in Cognitive Therapy for
Depression? An Examination of Cognitive Therapy Skills and Maladaptive Beliefs.
Behavior Therapy 46(1). Special Series: Advances in Evidence-Based Intervention and
Assessment Practices for Youth with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: 96–109. DOI:
10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.001.
Amsterdam J van, Opperhuizen A and Brink W van den (2011) Harm potential of magic
mushroom use: A review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 59(3): 423–429.
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.01.006.
Anderson T, Petranker R and Dinh-Williams L-A (2017) Demography of Microdosing
Community Survey. Available at: https://osf.io/g5cwy/ (accessed 6 July 2018).
Anderson T, Christopher A, Petranker R, et al. (2018) Benefits and Drawbacks of Microdosing
Psychedelics. Manuscript in preparation. Available at: osf.io/g5cwy.
Bogenschutz MP, Forcehimes AA, Pommy JA, et al. (2015) Psilocybin-assisted treatment for
alcohol dependence: a proof-of-concept study. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,
England) 29(3): 289–299. DOI: 10.1177/0269881114565144.
Carbonaro TM, Bradstreet MP, Barrett FS, et al. (2016) Survey study of challenging experiences
after ingesting psilocybin mushrooms: Acute and enduring positive and negative
consequences. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 30(12): 1268–1278.
DOI: 10.1177/0269881116662634.
Carhart-Harris RL, Roseman L, Bolstridge M, et al. (2017) Psilocybin for treatment-resistant
depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms. Scientific Reports 7(1): 13187. DOI:
10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7.
de Graaf LE, Roelofs J and Huibers MJH (2009) Measuring Dysfunctional Attitudes in the
General Population: The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (form A) Revised. Cognitive
Therapy and Research 33(4): 345–355. DOI: 10.1007/s10608-009-9229-y.
de Wit H and Phillips TJ (2012) Do initial responses to drugs predict future use or abuse?
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36(6): 1565–1576. DOI:
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.04.005.
Domínguez-Clavé E, Soler J, Elices M, et al. (2016) Ayahuasca: Pharmacology, neuroscience
and therapeutic potential. Brain Research Bulletin 126(Pt 1): 89–101. DOI:
10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.03.002.
Dos Santos RG, Osório FL, Crippa JAS, et al. (2016) Antidepressive, anxiolytic, and
antiaddictive effects of ayahuasca, psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD): a
systematic review of clinical trials published in the last 25 years. Therapeutic Advances
in Psychopharmacology 6(3): 193–213. DOI: 10.1177/2045125316638008.
Fadiman J (2011) The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Fredrickson BL (2004) The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci 359(1449): 1367–78. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512.
Glück J, König S, Naschenweng K, et al. (2013) How to measure wisdom: content, reliability,
and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology 4. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00405.
Griffiths RR, Johnson MW, Richards WA, et al. (2011) Psilocybin occasioned mystical-type
experiences: immediate and persisting dose-related effects. Psychopharmacology 218(4):
649–665. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-011-2358-5.
Griffiths RR, Johnson MW, Carducci MA, et al. (2016) Psilocybin produces substantial and
sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A
randomized double-blind trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)
30(12): 1181–1197. DOI: 10.1177/0269881116675513.
Gunnarsson M, Gustavsson P, Tengström A, et al. (2008) Personality traits and their associations
with substance use among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences 45: 356–
360. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.004.
Halpern JH and Pope HG (1999) Do hallucinogens cause residual neuropsychological toxicity?
Drug and Alcohol Dependence 53(3): 247–256. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-8716(98)00129-X.
Hardaway R, Schweitzer J and Suzuki J (2016) Hallucinogen Use Disorders. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 25(3): 489–496. DOI:
10.1016/j.chc.2016.03.006.
Jarrett RB, Minhajuddin A, Borman PD, et al. (2012) Cognitive Reactivity, Dysfunctional
Attitudes, and Depressive Relapse and Recurrence in Cognitive Therapy Responders.
Behaviour Research and Therapy 50(5): 280–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2012.01.008.
Johnson MW, Garcia-Romeu A, Cosimano MP, et al. (2014) Pilot Study of the 5-HT2AR
Agonist Psilocybin in the Treatment of Tobacco Addiction. Journal of
psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 28(11): 983–992. DOI:
10.1177/0269881114548296.
Johnson MW, Griffiths RR, Hendricks PS, et al. (2018) The abuse potential of medical
psilocybin according to the 8 factors of the Controlled Substances Act.
Neuropharmacology. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.05.012.
Kometer M, Pokorny T, Seifritz E, et al. (2015) Psilocybin-induced spiritual experiences and
insightfulness are associated with synchronization of neuronal oscillations.
Psychopharmacology 232(19): 3663–3676. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-015-4026-7.
Krebs TS and Johansen P-Ø (2013) Psychedelics and Mental Health: A Population Study. PLoS
ONE 8(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063972.
Lahey BB (2009) Public Health Significance of Neuroticism. The American psychologist 64(4):
241–256. DOI: 10.1037/a0015309.
Leonard A (2015) How LSD Microdosing Became the Hot New Business Trip. In: Rolling
Stone. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-lsd-
microdosing-became-the-hot-new-business-trip-64961/ (accessed 9 July 2018).
MacLean KA, Johnson MW and Griffiths RR (2011) Mystical Experiences Occasioned by the
Hallucinogen Psilocybin Lead to Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness.
Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 25(11): 1453–1461. DOI:
10.1177/0269881111420188.
Matejka J, Glueck M, Grossman T, et al. (2016) The Effect of Visual Appearance on the
Performance of Continuous Sliders and Visual Analogue Scales. In: Proceedings of the
2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA,
2016, pp. 5421–5432. CHI ’16. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2858036.2858063.
Moreno FA, Wiegand CB, Taitano EK, et al. (2006) Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of
psilocybin in 9 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry 67(11): 1735–1740.
Osório F de L, Sanches RF, Macedo LR, et al. (2015) Antidepressant effects of a single dose of
ayahuasca in patients with recurrent depression: a preliminary report. Revista Brasileira
De Psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil: 1999) 37(1): 13–20. DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2014-
1496.
Rosenbaum D, Weissman C, Hapke E, et al. (2018) Microdosing psychedelic substances:
demographics, psychiatric comorbidities, and comorbid substance use. Manuscript in
preparation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Available at: osf.io/g5cwy.
Ross S, Bossis A, Guss J, et al. (2016) Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following
psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: a
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 30(12):
1165–1180. DOI: 10.1177/0269881116675512.
Silvia PJ (2011) Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: Examining the reliability of unusual
uses, instances, and consequences tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6(1): 24–30. DOI:
10.1016/j.tsc.2010.06.001.
Silvia PJ, Winterstein BP, Willse JT, et al. (2008) Assessing creativity with divergent thinking
tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2(2): 68–85. DOI: 10.1037/1931-
3896.2.2.68.
Solon O (2016) Under pressure, Silicon Valley workers turn to LSD microdosing. Wired UK, 24
August. Available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/lsd-microdosing-drugs-silicon-
valley (accessed 9 July 2018).
Soto CJ and John OP (2016) The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Assessing a
Hierarchical Model With 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive
Power. Article in Press. Available at: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-
s2.0-84962720315&partnerID=40&md5=a060a5135d4ee7cfc25cb84c5118a272.
Strassman RJ (2016) DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor’s Revolutionary Research into the
Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
Terracciano A, Löckenhoff CE, Crum RM, et al. (2008) Five-Factor Model personality profiles
of drug users. BMC Psychiatry 8: 22. DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-8-22.
Trull TJ and Sher KJ (1994) Relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Axis
I disorders in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103(2): 350–360.
DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.103.2.350.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2011) International Standard Classification of Education
(ISCED) 2011. Available at:
http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-
of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf.
Waldman A (2017) A Really Good Day: How Microdosing Made a Mega Difference in My
Mood, My Marriage, and My Life. 1 edition. New York: Knopf.
